Anyone who uses censorship - which I beleive Sasha did, is suspect. Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say. Let's give our attention (thus our energy, our electricity) to those who have the courage to speak out with courage.
Anyone who uses censorship - which I beleive Sasha did, is suspect. Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say. Let's give our attention (thus our energy, our electricity) to those who have the courage to speak out with courage.
You ‘BELIEVE’ Sasha did use censorship and is suspect. What amazing intellect you have. What you did was read a poorly worded post and jumped on the bandwagon of ‘let’s get the censorship suspect.’ The “suspect” happens to be someone you have never heard of before. She also happens to be one of the bravest, most outspoken and intelligent people on the planet.
Then 8 people who are also idiots, hopped on your doomed bandwagon with likes. Next, Lizzie Cable wants a list of “such people.”
This is a thread on the great CJ Hopkins Substack.
Yeah, I was wondering what denise ward was on about with the "which I beleive Sasha did," comment. Maybe there is a Substack controversy to which I am obliviously ignorant.
This is perfect. Someone needs to create a "How to tap out a troll in under 10 seconds w/ Judith Chantler" Instructional video.
You hit every mark.
Just for other's education, I'm going to do a quick tactic analysis in the hopes that that Instructional video gets made.
Tactics used-
1. Non ad hominem attack on the troll. Once a person references their belief, opinion, judgement etc in an argument, they are no longer the messenger. They have now self identified as the expert supporting their position. Question and Refute whatever trait they are relying on to subjectively support that position. Show that they lack the resource they claim.
2. Find their errors, present them, but do not explain their errors to them. (If Denise ever reads this, then I am breaking the no teaching the enemy rule, but it is worth it.)
Denise's error was to read the last 5 words of Wendel's comment and gamble on them referencing a singular entity. "WEF mole. See Sasha Latypova" Sasha is a damn good investigative journalist and pharma expert, not the WEF Mole using censorship. A simple copy and paste search of the name would have prevented this error. This is a failure to do even the lowest effort diligence before entering the fray. Pathetic and Judith gets a clean head shot for it.
"What you did was read a poorly worded post and jumped on the bandwagon of ‘let’s get the censorship suspect.’ The “suspect” happens to be someone you have never heard of before."
Judith was able to extrapolate this take down from that one, unforced error. Most importantly, notice the lack of correction or even bio info presented along with take down. This way, Denise leaves the argument only knowing that Judith somehow knew that she had not done even the most cursory review of the topic prior to commenting. Learns nothing from the self inflicted L, but potentially (Hopefully) gains an anxiety of possible future prescient rebuttals.
3. Embarrass their thoughtless supporters. Those people who liked that comment, now have a solid reason to feel that Denise has utterly failed them. They don't know exactly how, but they do know that they have become somehow lessened in the public opinion. They absolutely are idiots for the knee jerk public support of such a flawed comment, but they will blame the injury on Denise. The quality of character it takes to see when one has only themself to blame for a social injury, precludes those who jump, in total ignorance of the topic at hand, to support a position.
Bonus lesson, can anyone point out the grade school tactic Denise crafted her comment around? It's a logical bait and switch.
Appear to support the thesis, "Anyone who uses censorship... is suspect" (censorship bad), then suggest the antithesis as a solution, " Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say" (self-censor them, censorship good). Juvenile but often effective in shifting the Overton Window.
That's a good question but I read it somewhere and can't place who said it now. I read it by someone that claimed you censored them. I was surprised I must admit however free speech can enable all of us to defend ourselves if someone makes claims that are untrue. That's the beauty of free speech. I don't think I'll be able to trace it back as I read a lot of stuff. But it will help me ask more questions when a claim is made like that. Sorry if it is inaccurate.
ok, so maybe if you don't have evidence then you should not write this stuff about me? I ban trolls from my page, and people who are rude to me or my readers. That's not censorship since I am not government, by the way.
Ok so Sasha dear, that's censoring. You can't ban anyone let alone people you claim are trolls. That's the thing about free speech, you can't be half pregnant about it. No if you allow yourself to do it but not government then that's a double standard. And it goes the same way if you allow government to do things but not your peers, (like stealing for example) This person you call a troll was actually quite genuine. I get that too, people call me a troll but I just want to seek truth and it makes people feel uncomfortable so they think slapping on a name to it is justification. I think this idea of free speech and censorship needs to be ironed out or we're going to get trounced. What is harmful about words written on a screen? It is the one place we can be truly free and you're throwing that away. for us. That endangers my life and everyone's life because if we succumb to censorship for any reason, except maybe someone who is going to report us, or someone who makes threats against us, then it will give consent for government to censor and big tech. There is way too much sensitivity to words on a screen. This is where we must talk openly and freely and not accuse someone and shut them off. I notice that's what always happens - the censor wants their say but denies someone from having their say. Your readers can make up their own minds. Censorship keeps us in the supremacy paradigm and holds us back and that will only fuel the ghouls who want to kill us all. Free speech is all we've got. We have nothing else and they have everything. Why be on the side they're on? Just because someone doesn't say things your way? You can always ignore them too. But to cut off someone's expression should be considered a crime - it's THAT crucial. We are in dangerous waters enough. Why make us sink lower?
ok, dear Denise Ward. Specially for you! Here we go. "fuck you bitch [add a bunch of obscenities blah blah blah] " Phew Denise, I just had the best free speech event of my life! Thank you for it. No, as we discussed you can't censor any of this, you have to endorse it right here and acknowledge every word was absolutely correctly right!!!
In conclusion, Demise, I will run my substack exactly as it pleases me and ban every troll that is a rude and disrespectful idiot off my page, since it is my work product and my interaction with my readers. you can run your substack absolutey the way you prefer, and I do not interfere with your decisions.
I don't think you're the real Sasha. Wow, such a response sure shows your level. No I won't censor it though, why? Like I said it's just words on a screen and we don't really know who you are. I doubt your who you purport to be because I don't think she would answer like a drunken sailor. I don't have to endorse it but I certainly have no intention of censoring it that would be preposterous. I'd rather everyone can see you for what you speak.
I am 100% real Sasha, Denise. I hope this was a lesson to you. Do you need another lesson? Or are we done moaning about "free speech"?
PS. Denise Ward acknowledged she is a moron, and she endorses this since it is free speech. She will never censor this ever. Free speech Denise, remember! You love it, right? You love being called retarded, no?
No we're not done. The lesson is for you to learn. Just because you responded like a drunken sailor still didn't cause me to censor you. You thought I would because it would justify your own transgression. You are the one who has missed the point. And if you don't get that free speech is of the utmost importance for humanity especially now when technocrats are salivating to shut us up, then it seriously shows your intelligence is not quite up to snuff.
ok, cool! I win. You acknowledge you are a retard. Awesome. Free speech is amazing. Especially when I can exercise it at morons who believe that they must take abuse because they must uphold my right to abuse them, when they in fact have no such obligation, since they are NOT government. But just low IQ hypocrites like Denise Ward! This is so amazing, I can't even begin to describe it!
I don't call writing to be abuse. You're associating real life with online life. Online it must be always free as it's words on a screen. I can ignore you too but you can say anything you like about me. It's your opinion and opinions are a dime a dozen. Substantiated opinions are what matters to me. Calling someone who disagrees with you a moron and all the diatribe you did above, just shows you do not know how to argue. And I think the guy was right about you. If it is really you, it goes to show that an education doesn't necessarily mean intelligence.
While I tend to side with denise ward in this little dispute here, I wonder if denise ward would allow every expression if she were in charge of a space (a blog, a chat room, a substack, a forum, etc.). What if someone were repeatedly issuing death threats? What if they were doxxing others in the space? What if they were spamming obscenities and nothing else? I.e., there usually are limits, though one tries to minimize deploying them as much as humanly possible. I don't know why Sasha banned those people, but the danger comes in where a person does not adequately discern the difference between a minimum measure for maintaining order in a space, and censoring over ideas we don't like.
What about the reality that so many commenters censor their own real names in order to say things anonymously. If you are hiding your name, you are being inconsistent when you condemn censorship. And defaming people who do use their own names by people who don't, is a real obscenity. Good thing that Sasha, Denise and Tony... we're all using our real names here.
Your words might carry a bit of weight (as it stands they carry none) if you had a shred of evidence that Sasha censors. Having spent my life in the world of writers I recognise the difference between censoring and editing and I know scores of writers who have bleated that they have been censored after a judicious edit. Saying you read something somewhere but can't remember where doesn't amount to much more than gossip.
"That's a good question but I read it somewhere and can't place who said it now. I read it by someone that claimed you censored them. I was surprised I must admit however free speech can enable all of us to defend ourselves if someone makes claims that are untrue."
In other words an unsubstantiated accusation. These days in particular we should be very careful and avoid that.
Well we should only give our attention to those who uphold free speech but we should have a list of those who censor. For sure, and highlight those who censor so others won't have to waste their time with them. When I found out Sasha censors, I didn't spend any more time listening to her. What is the point of it being one-sided? That's what we have now so it is remaining the same way will only give us the same results with just different people. It's still tyranny. We all want to be heard. It's important to use the Golden Rule. We cannot progress without free speech. It's of the utmost importance. It slays me how so many just toss it away. What it means is we consent to censorship and thus the overlords will continue to do it to us! But if we revile censorship and practice free speech, it won't be so easy for them to do it to us then.
I get you and you have a point. I think what would be even better would be to have a list of anyone who censors especially those who call themselves truthers. I have a list like that. Sarah Westall is one and there are many others, many of them on substack. I think if we highlighted those who censor then other activists shouldn't bother with them. They just want to have their say but not give the same graciousness to others. We must uphold free speech with all our might as it is of critical importance. It is the vehicle that will enable us to get through all this and start a whole free world. We cannot be free if we cannot speak freely. Anyone can rebutt if something is found to be untrue but to censor must be vigorously disgraced.
Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Ezra Levant -- all three censored the participation of Faith Goldy in a seminar about... get this... how society is censoring free speech -- a seminar they had invited her to participate in!!!
Ladies... ladies... is this how you want to reflect your true character, by ignoring the verses that Jesus taught, “to love your neighbor as you love yourself?” “to forgive and forget” as He claims “justice is His!”
How ‘bout “turning the other cheek?”
Both of you appear to be bright, intelligent women who care deeply about the causes for which you give voice to but, in all actuality, you are censoring yourselves when you write this kind of drivel in an uncouth and demeaning way because no one wants to read such horrific spiteful things no matter who it’s coming from.
As women, shouldn’t we support each other instead of tearing each other down???
As the song so beautifully says, please... “Straighten Up and Fly Right!”
I wish I could be candid about what I think about superstition both religion and $ceince. So what actually are you saying - that people cannot disagree? What do you do when you disagree with someone? Sweep it under the carpet? But do tell, because it's interesting that you brought it up, this forced "niceness" where we all have to agree. But agree with who and with what? The status quo? The older person? The more monies person? Who should sweep their opinion under the carpet? Because someone has to if we cannot accept disagreement.
Anyone who uses censorship - which I beleive Sasha did, is suspect. Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say. Let's give our attention (thus our energy, our electricity) to those who have the courage to speak out with courage.
You ‘BELIEVE’ Sasha did use censorship and is suspect. What amazing intellect you have. What you did was read a poorly worded post and jumped on the bandwagon of ‘let’s get the censorship suspect.’ The “suspect” happens to be someone you have never heard of before. She also happens to be one of the bravest, most outspoken and intelligent people on the planet.
Then 8 people who are also idiots, hopped on your doomed bandwagon with likes. Next, Lizzie Cable wants a list of “such people.”
This is a thread on the great CJ Hopkins Substack.
Thank God for such people as Sasha Latypova.
thanks, I hope she now understands what censorship actually is.
If not she might have a good idea if what free speech is now Sasha.😂
Yeah, I was wondering what denise ward was on about with the "which I beleive Sasha did," comment. Maybe there is a Substack controversy to which I am obliviously ignorant.
No there was no evidence for her BELIEF. There is quite a lot of threads related to that. Sasha came on and let her have it.
This is perfect. Someone needs to create a "How to tap out a troll in under 10 seconds w/ Judith Chantler" Instructional video.
You hit every mark.
Just for other's education, I'm going to do a quick tactic analysis in the hopes that that Instructional video gets made.
Tactics used-
1. Non ad hominem attack on the troll. Once a person references their belief, opinion, judgement etc in an argument, they are no longer the messenger. They have now self identified as the expert supporting their position. Question and Refute whatever trait they are relying on to subjectively support that position. Show that they lack the resource they claim.
2. Find their errors, present them, but do not explain their errors to them. (If Denise ever reads this, then I am breaking the no teaching the enemy rule, but it is worth it.)
Denise's error was to read the last 5 words of Wendel's comment and gamble on them referencing a singular entity. "WEF mole. See Sasha Latypova" Sasha is a damn good investigative journalist and pharma expert, not the WEF Mole using censorship. A simple copy and paste search of the name would have prevented this error. This is a failure to do even the lowest effort diligence before entering the fray. Pathetic and Judith gets a clean head shot for it.
"What you did was read a poorly worded post and jumped on the bandwagon of ‘let’s get the censorship suspect.’ The “suspect” happens to be someone you have never heard of before."
Judith was able to extrapolate this take down from that one, unforced error. Most importantly, notice the lack of correction or even bio info presented along with take down. This way, Denise leaves the argument only knowing that Judith somehow knew that she had not done even the most cursory review of the topic prior to commenting. Learns nothing from the self inflicted L, but potentially (Hopefully) gains an anxiety of possible future prescient rebuttals.
3. Embarrass their thoughtless supporters. Those people who liked that comment, now have a solid reason to feel that Denise has utterly failed them. They don't know exactly how, but they do know that they have become somehow lessened in the public opinion. They absolutely are idiots for the knee jerk public support of such a flawed comment, but they will blame the injury on Denise. The quality of character it takes to see when one has only themself to blame for a social injury, precludes those who jump, in total ignorance of the topic at hand, to support a position.
Bonus lesson, can anyone point out the grade school tactic Denise crafted her comment around? It's a logical bait and switch.
Appear to support the thesis, "Anyone who uses censorship... is suspect" (censorship bad), then suggest the antithesis as a solution, " Better to spend no time caring about what they have to say" (self-censor them, censorship good). Juvenile but often effective in shifting the Overton Window.
Very interesting Andi. Thank you.
what censorship did I use?
That's a good question but I read it somewhere and can't place who said it now. I read it by someone that claimed you censored them. I was surprised I must admit however free speech can enable all of us to defend ourselves if someone makes claims that are untrue. That's the beauty of free speech. I don't think I'll be able to trace it back as I read a lot of stuff. But it will help me ask more questions when a claim is made like that. Sorry if it is inaccurate.
ok, so maybe if you don't have evidence then you should not write this stuff about me? I ban trolls from my page, and people who are rude to me or my readers. That's not censorship since I am not government, by the way.
Ok so Sasha dear, that's censoring. You can't ban anyone let alone people you claim are trolls. That's the thing about free speech, you can't be half pregnant about it. No if you allow yourself to do it but not government then that's a double standard. And it goes the same way if you allow government to do things but not your peers, (like stealing for example) This person you call a troll was actually quite genuine. I get that too, people call me a troll but I just want to seek truth and it makes people feel uncomfortable so they think slapping on a name to it is justification. I think this idea of free speech and censorship needs to be ironed out or we're going to get trounced. What is harmful about words written on a screen? It is the one place we can be truly free and you're throwing that away. for us. That endangers my life and everyone's life because if we succumb to censorship for any reason, except maybe someone who is going to report us, or someone who makes threats against us, then it will give consent for government to censor and big tech. There is way too much sensitivity to words on a screen. This is where we must talk openly and freely and not accuse someone and shut them off. I notice that's what always happens - the censor wants their say but denies someone from having their say. Your readers can make up their own minds. Censorship keeps us in the supremacy paradigm and holds us back and that will only fuel the ghouls who want to kill us all. Free speech is all we've got. We have nothing else and they have everything. Why be on the side they're on? Just because someone doesn't say things your way? You can always ignore them too. But to cut off someone's expression should be considered a crime - it's THAT crucial. We are in dangerous waters enough. Why make us sink lower?
ok, dear Denise Ward. Specially for you! Here we go. "fuck you bitch [add a bunch of obscenities blah blah blah] " Phew Denise, I just had the best free speech event of my life! Thank you for it. No, as we discussed you can't censor any of this, you have to endorse it right here and acknowledge every word was absolutely correctly right!!!
In conclusion, Demise, I will run my substack exactly as it pleases me and ban every troll that is a rude and disrespectful idiot off my page, since it is my work product and my interaction with my readers. you can run your substack absolutey the way you prefer, and I do not interfere with your decisions.
Thanks to Demise The Troll, this is the first time I wish that Substack comments had a downvote button.
I don't think you're the real Sasha. Wow, such a response sure shows your level. No I won't censor it though, why? Like I said it's just words on a screen and we don't really know who you are. I doubt your who you purport to be because I don't think she would answer like a drunken sailor. I don't have to endorse it but I certainly have no intention of censoring it that would be preposterous. I'd rather everyone can see you for what you speak.
I am 100% real Sasha, Denise. I hope this was a lesson to you. Do you need another lesson? Or are we done moaning about "free speech"?
PS. Denise Ward acknowledged she is a moron, and she endorses this since it is free speech. She will never censor this ever. Free speech Denise, remember! You love it, right? You love being called retarded, no?
No we're not done. The lesson is for you to learn. Just because you responded like a drunken sailor still didn't cause me to censor you. You thought I would because it would justify your own transgression. You are the one who has missed the point. And if you don't get that free speech is of the utmost importance for humanity especially now when technocrats are salivating to shut us up, then it seriously shows your intelligence is not quite up to snuff.
ok, cool! I win. You acknowledge you are a retard. Awesome. Free speech is amazing. Especially when I can exercise it at morons who believe that they must take abuse because they must uphold my right to abuse them, when they in fact have no such obligation, since they are NOT government. But just low IQ hypocrites like Denise Ward! This is so amazing, I can't even begin to describe it!
I don't call writing to be abuse. You're associating real life with online life. Online it must be always free as it's words on a screen. I can ignore you too but you can say anything you like about me. It's your opinion and opinions are a dime a dozen. Substantiated opinions are what matters to me. Calling someone who disagrees with you a moron and all the diatribe you did above, just shows you do not know how to argue. And I think the guy was right about you. If it is really you, it goes to show that an education doesn't necessarily mean intelligence.
While I tend to side with denise ward in this little dispute here, I wonder if denise ward would allow every expression if she were in charge of a space (a blog, a chat room, a substack, a forum, etc.). What if someone were repeatedly issuing death threats? What if they were doxxing others in the space? What if they were spamming obscenities and nothing else? I.e., there usually are limits, though one tries to minimize deploying them as much as humanly possible. I don't know why Sasha banned those people, but the danger comes in where a person does not adequately discern the difference between a minimum measure for maintaining order in a space, and censoring over ideas we don't like.
What about the reality that so many commenters censor their own real names in order to say things anonymously. If you are hiding your name, you are being inconsistent when you condemn censorship. And defaming people who do use their own names by people who don't, is a real obscenity. Good thing that Sasha, Denise and Tony... we're all using our real names here.
Your words might carry a bit of weight (as it stands they carry none) if you had a shred of evidence that Sasha censors. Having spent my life in the world of writers I recognise the difference between censoring and editing and I know scores of writers who have bleated that they have been censored after a judicious edit. Saying you read something somewhere but can't remember where doesn't amount to much more than gossip.
"That's a good question but I read it somewhere and can't place who said it now. I read it by someone that claimed you censored them. I was surprised I must admit however free speech can enable all of us to defend ourselves if someone makes claims that are untrue."
In other words an unsubstantiated accusation. These days in particular we should be very careful and avoid that.
Yes! Would you kindly please make a short list of such people for me??
Well we should only give our attention to those who uphold free speech but we should have a list of those who censor. For sure, and highlight those who censor so others won't have to waste their time with them. When I found out Sasha censors, I didn't spend any more time listening to her. What is the point of it being one-sided? That's what we have now so it is remaining the same way will only give us the same results with just different people. It's still tyranny. We all want to be heard. It's important to use the Golden Rule. We cannot progress without free speech. It's of the utmost importance. It slays me how so many just toss it away. What it means is we consent to censorship and thus the overlords will continue to do it to us! But if we revile censorship and practice free speech, it won't be so easy for them to do it to us then.
Notice how CJ has already attracted a whole crowd of malicious freaks around him. Yeah, get that "list." So she can shoot them all....
I get you and you have a point. I think what would be even better would be to have a list of anyone who censors especially those who call themselves truthers. I have a list like that. Sarah Westall is one and there are many others, many of them on substack. I think if we highlighted those who censor then other activists shouldn't bother with them. They just want to have their say but not give the same graciousness to others. We must uphold free speech with all our might as it is of critical importance. It is the vehicle that will enable us to get through all this and start a whole free world. We cannot be free if we cannot speak freely. Anyone can rebutt if something is found to be untrue but to censor must be vigorously disgraced.
Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Ezra Levant -- all three censored the participation of Faith Goldy in a seminar about... get this... how society is censoring free speech -- a seminar they had invited her to participate in!!!
Ladies... ladies... is this how you want to reflect your true character, by ignoring the verses that Jesus taught, “to love your neighbor as you love yourself?” “to forgive and forget” as He claims “justice is His!”
How ‘bout “turning the other cheek?”
Both of you appear to be bright, intelligent women who care deeply about the causes for which you give voice to but, in all actuality, you are censoring yourselves when you write this kind of drivel in an uncouth and demeaning way because no one wants to read such horrific spiteful things no matter who it’s coming from.
As women, shouldn’t we support each other instead of tearing each other down???
As the song so beautifully says, please... “Straighten Up and Fly Right!”
https://youtu.be/aSgMDrg_I2Q?si=IhGVo2wkEyI76uyF
I wish I could be candid about what I think about superstition both religion and $ceince. So what actually are you saying - that people cannot disagree? What do you do when you disagree with someone? Sweep it under the carpet? But do tell, because it's interesting that you brought it up, this forced "niceness" where we all have to agree. But agree with who and with what? The status quo? The older person? The more monies person? Who should sweep their opinion under the carpet? Because someone has to if we cannot accept disagreement.
I do NOT believe that Sasha uses censorship!!! If anyone speaks out with courage to speak as you frase it , it is Saha Latypova